joel hoffman Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 I'm just guessing, but the firm offering a $0 cost to construct the ditches, probably just wants to use the excavated material on another project somewhere on or off the base. I'm guessing that it has little or no idea that at least some of the soils may be or are contaminated with fuels, lubricant or other regulated hazardous wastes or what the possible consequences of using such soils are. The whole scenario looks a little strange to me. Unfortunately, having been a DoD civil engineer with previous Air Force base CE experience, experience as a consulting engineer and experience on many previous airfield and horizontal construction projects over the years, I am aware of all sorts of possible complications for such an effort. Excavating "a 'trench' around the flight line and runways" might violate DoD construction standards for airfield clearance and safety. It might well also kick in national and local stormwater pollution control run-off requirements under NEPA or other laws. If there are wetlands involved ("aleviating recurring flooding" is the apparent purpose), additional laws and regulations kick in. Then, the above mentioned RCRA or other laws and regulations concerning contaminated soils may be applicable. Unfortunately, such seemingly simple projects often get military installations or private owners into deep trouble with regulatory agencies. We don't know what type of acquisition method is being used or if any of the above mentioned complications are present. I am pretty sure that this began as some type of acquisition process under the FAR, where the installation "solicited offers" to "construct a trench around the flight line and runways in order to alleviate recurring flooding." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wvanpup Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 Mea culpa, to an extent. I was thinking of this acquisition, which started as a FAR solicitation but received the $0 offer, as opposed to an "RFP" seeking $0 offers (and perhaps, in effect, selling the soil). Having started as a FAR acquisition, if award can be made at $0, I think it continues as a FAR acquisition to the extent that FAR applies during contract administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vern Edwards Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 Award the contract for $1.00. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
here_2_help Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 Related Question: Is a Technology Investment Agreement (TIA) -- as defined by Part 37 of the DoDGARS -- a contract or not? It is defined by DCMA as a "non-procurement instrument" but that doesn't really answer my question. If it's a contract then my client needs to allocate indirect costs to it; but if not, then it does not. Any answers? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Mansfield Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 Contractual transaction, yes. "Contract" as defined at FAR 2.101, probably not. Where is the word "contract" being used? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
here_2_help Posted April 9, 2013 Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 In the sense that a contract has direct costs, whereas a TIA may be an agreement with respect to IR&D costs, which allocate to contracts. H2H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Mansfield Posted April 9, 2013 Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 help, I assume that the word "contract" is being used in a regulation or something (i.e., whatever is telling you how to treat IR&D costs) and you're trying to interpret its meaning. Where, specifically, is the word being used? Are you trying to interpret its use at FAR 31.205-18? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vern Edwards Posted April 9, 2013 Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 According to the DOD Grant and Agreement Regulations, DOD 3210.6-R, a technology investment agreement is either a cooperative agreement or an other type of assistance transaction, i.e., an "other transaction," depending on its terms. See DODGAR 37.110 and Appendix B. Either way, it is not a contract as defined by FAR 2.101 and is not subject to FAR Part 31 and the Cost Accounting Standards. See DCAA Contract Audit Manual 14-909, especially 14.909.5c. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retreadfed Posted April 9, 2013 Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 H2H, wouldn't a TIA be a cost objective regardless of whether it is a contract? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
here_2_help Posted April 9, 2013 Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 Vern & Don -- Thanks. Retreadfed -- Yes, in the sense that an IR&D project is a cost objective. I was thinking about the TRW case (ASBCA No. 51530, 2002) where the court found that TRW's MOU with Odyssey was a contract not B&P. But on re-reading the case I see it dealt with B&P and not IR&D. And 31.205-18 expressly makes IR&D costs associated with cooperative agreements allowable IR&D. So all is good. I was overthinking. Thanks to all. Very helpful. H2H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Camper Posted April 9, 2013 Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 The problem of contaminated soil exists with or without a barter contract. Has anyone yet advised to allow offerors a site visit to test the soil before offer? If not, has the government provided the results of a government conducted soil test? If neither, your issue is broader than whether or not a barter contract will fly: your issue is that you have not tested the soil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joel hoffman Posted April 9, 2013 Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 Happy, I think Tipphill checked out of this thread long ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.gif)
Recommended Posts